Ansar al Islam and Salman Pak were flimsy evidence?
Abdul Rahman Yasin (convicted 93 WTC bomb-maker) living in Baghdad and collecting a government paycheck for a decade is flimsy?
The 1998 Grand Jury indictment citing a working relationship between OBL and Saddam was based on flimsy evidence?
The 1999 offer of asylum to OBL is flimsy evidence?
The IIS envoys to the Sudan and Afghanistan to meet with OBL are flimsy?
The al-Ani/Atta meeting in Prague is flimsy? Why, because an anonymous FBI source told the New York Times they placed Atta in Virginia at the time (and we all know the FBI had such a great handle on Atta in 2001).
Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.
Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.
Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.
I guess so, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Intelligence doesn't have to be perfect. It never did, and it never will. It just has to be credible, and confirmed by other sources. This bin Laden stuff may sounds scary, but it's child's play next to some reports floating around. You could stack every impressive sounding CIA report on top of each other, and they'd reach halfway to the moon. Volume doesn't mean anything without reliability or (non circular) confirmation.
Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.
A connection, meaning what? That he had his intelligence guys in contact with AQ agents? Absolutely. That's par for the course in that neighborhood. If we wanted to lay our cards down on the table, we could indict Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or any number of countries as having links to al-Qa'ida. Does that mean they're actively plotting attacks against the U.S., or that they're running a robust intelligence service? The kind that we wish we had, that actually had links and insight to potential troublemakers.
I'm not convinced that there were any operational links between AQ and Saddam, and given the Administration's stance, I doubt anyone in the U.S government really thinks there were either. That doesn't make Saddam innocent, or invading Iraq a bad idea, by any means. Just that his links to AQ were the prudent kind that a tyrant in the region would want.